Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?

One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.

You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.

If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:

All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).

Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.

George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.

And conservative columnist George Will points out that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.

Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion. Does that sound like fiscal discipline to you?

You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to ruin your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral leaders” in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.

Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?

Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html

What a bore I am.

Nice thread-jack, jerk.

wtf? is that Phil Donahue?

phil = Bean-O? Or just two lost souls who are both prone to gigantic comment-dumps?

You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral leaders” in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.

Are you saying taking money from some people and giving it to other people in the name of social good is a BAD thing??

Is this practice always wrong, or only when it is used to further a right wing agenda?

OK, show of hands, who here loves the term 'fiscal rape?'

Is that not the coolest turn of phrase evar??

fiscal rape
fiscal rape
fiscal rape
fiscal rape

Gosh, its frickin beautiful.

*writing 'fiscal rape' in glitter pen on my notebook*

*dotting the 'i' with a little heart*

Ace, I hope you talk about this French diplomat thing on your radio show. I also hope you do a little history flashback, that recounts how Villepan sabotaged and terminated UN negotiations by insisting France would Veto any force authorization. Removing the stick from negotiations meant Saddam would never take negotiations and threats seriously, and would steadily undermine sanctions to eventually do whatever he wants.

*dotting the 'i' with a little heart*

howling

And to think, there actually IS a spending post right next to this one.

Yeah, but when you have *child* fiscal rape, that is a bit too weird of an analogy for me, if you catch my meaning.

Somewhere in that gigantic mess posted at the top (I'll admit I can't be bothered to trudge thru the whole thing) is someone who is spectacularly unaware of the dislike fiscal conservatives have for Bush's policies.

Apparently we're all just enablers of fiscal rape, or something.

*child* fiscal rape

Which at least takes us back to the UN, kinda.

OK. So we know Saddam was getting overt assurances from France that the UN would block US military action. Villepan was taking his cash and wielding the veto while Hussein defied us. And when we deployed France pressured Turkey into crippling our plans so the bleeding would drag out needlessly.

In the meantime, an operative of theirs had been planting an obviouly phony document about Niger through Italian sources to discredit intelligence abhout Hussein's renewed attempts to procure uranium -- purely for medicinal purposes, of course. Russia, Germany and France had been pulling in crazy sized Iraqi bucks on Oil for Food and, IIRC, weapons and tech transfers that the Russians subsequently helped Hussein to move. But all of these countries are also dependent on large numbers of rowdy Muslim immigrants so the irresponsible Hussein coddling was OK because ... well, because that would make a difference somehow.

And these guys have credibility -- why? One of the fair criticisms of the UN has always been that it presumes to give the worst thugs a voice and patina of respectability equal to those of free nations. It's starting to look like it also encourages more advanced countries to adopt the corrupt practices of their Thrd World "peers." Nice.

I wonder what the left wing/Eurotrash talking points will be if we finally translate enough documents to show Iraq's biochem stocks and nuclear plans/components were moved out of the country while the UN and the American left were forcing our delay. There has to be a way to blame Bush for that too.